kernel/git - git - PowerEL Git System

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Nanako Shiraishi	3604e7c5c6	tests: use "git xyzzy" form (t3600 - t6999) Converts tests between t3600-t6300. Signed-off-by: Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@lavabit.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	17 years ago
Stephan Beyer	d492b31caf	t/: Use "test_must_fail git" instead of "! git" This patch changes every occurrence of "! git" -- with the meaning that a git call has to gracefully fail -- into "test_must_fail git". This is useful to - make sure the test does not fail because of a signal, e.g. SIGSEGV, and - advertise the use of "test_must_fail" for new tests. Signed-off-by: Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	17 years ago
Junio C Hamano	3af828634f	tests: do not use implicit "git diff --no-index" As a general principle, we should not use "git diff" to validate the results of what git command that is being tested has done. We would not know if we are testing the command in question, or locating a bug in the cute hack of "git diff --no-index". Rather use test_cmp for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	17 years ago
Junio C Hamano	41ac414ea2	Sane use of test_expect_failure Originally, test_expect_failure was designed to be the opposite of test_expect_success, but this was a bad decision. Most tests run a series of commands that leads to the single command that needs to be tested, like this: test_expect_{success,failure} 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && what is to be tested ' And expecting a failure exit from the whole sequence misses the point of writing tests. Your setup$N that are supposed to succeed may have failed without even reaching what you are trying to test. The only valid use of test_expect_failure is to check a trivial single command that is expected to fail, which is a minority in tests of Porcelain-ish commands. This large-ish patch rewrites all uses of test_expect_failure to use test_expect_success and rewrites the condition of what is tested, like this: test_expect_success 'test title' ' setup1 && setup2 && setup3 && ! this command should fail ' test_expect_failure is redefined to serve as a reminder that that test should succeed but due to a known breakage in git it currently does not pass. So if git-foo command should create a file 'bar' but you discovered a bug that it doesn't, you can write a test like this: test_expect_failure 'git-foo should create bar' ' rm -f bar && git foo && test -f bar ' This construct acts similar to test_expect_success, but instead of reporting "ok/FAIL" like test_expect_success does, the outcome is reported as "FIXED/still broken". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	17 years ago
Shawn O. Pearce	733f1815ab	Use 'printf %s $x' notation in t5401 We only care about getting what should be an empty string and sending it to a file, without a trailing LF, so the empty string translates into a 0 byte file. Earlier when I originally wrote these lines Mac OS X allowed the format string of printf to be the empty string, but more recent versions appear to have been 'improved' with error messages if the format is not given. This may cause problems if we ever wind up with changes to the hook tests. A minor cleanup makes the test more safe on all systems, by conforming to accepted printf conventions. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	17 years ago
Junio C Hamano	0feb4d1c99	t/t{3600,3800,5401}: do not use egrep when grep would do There is nothing _wrong_ with egrep per se, but this way we would have less dependency on external tools. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	17 years ago
Junio C Hamano	5be60078c9	Rewrite "git-frotz" to "git frotz" This uses the remove-dashes target to replace "git-frotz" to "git frotz". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	18 years ago
Shawn O. Pearce	f43cd49fb8	Change {pre,post}-receive hooks to use stdin Sergey Vlasov, Andy Parkins and Alex Riesen all pointed out that it is possible for a single invocation of receive-pack to be given more refs than the OS might allow us to pass as command line parameters to a single hook invocation. We don't want to break these up into multiple invocations (like xargs might do) as that makes it impossible for the pre-receive hook to verify multiple related ref updates occur at the same time, and it makes it harder for post-receive to send out a single batch notification. Instead we pass the reference data on a pipe connected to the hook's stdin, supplying one ref per line to the hook. This way a single hook invocation can obtain an infinite amount of ref data, without bumping into any operating system limits. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>	18 years ago
Shawn O. Pearce	05ef58ec1f	Teach receive-pack to run pre-receive/post-receive hooks Bill Lear pointed out that it is easy to send out notifications of changes with the update hook, but successful execution of the update hook does not necessarily mean that the ref was actually updated. Lock contention on the ref or being unable to append to the reflog may prevent the ref from being changed. Sending out notifications prior to the ref actually changing is very misleading. To help this situation I am introducing two new hooks to the receive-pack flow: pre-receive and post-receive. These new hooks are invoked only once per receive-pack execution and are passed three arguments per ref (refname, old-sha1, new-sha1). The new post-receive hook is ideal for sending out notifications, as it has the complete list of all refnames that were successfully updated as well as the old and new SHA-1 values. This allows more interesting notifications to be sent. Multiple ref updates could be easily summarized into one email, for example. The new pre-receive hook is ideal for logging update attempts, as it is run only once for the entire receive-pack operation. It can also be used to verify multiple updates happen at once, e.g. an update to the `maint` head must also be accompained by a new annotated tag. Lots of documentation improvements for receive-pack are included in this change, as we want to make sure the new hooks are clearly explained. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>	18 years ago
Johannes Schindelin	5bd74506cd	Get rid of the dependency to GNU diff in the tests Now that "git diff" handles stdin and relative paths outside the working tree correctly, we can convert all instances of "diff -u" to "git diff". This commit is really the result of $ perl -pi.bak -e 's/diff -u/git diff/' $(git grep -l "diff -u" t/) Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> (cherry picked from commit c699a40d68215c7e44a5b26117a35c8a56fbd387)	18 years ago
Jason Riedy	2aad957a51	Replace "echo -n" with printf in shell scripts. Not all echos know -n. This was causing a test failure in t5401-update-hooks.sh, but not t3800-mktag.sh for some reason. Signed-off-by: Jason Riedy <ejr@cs.berkeley.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>	18 years ago
Shawn O. Pearce	27086d0f84	Add test case for update hooks in receive-pack. Verify that the update hooks work as documented/advertised. This is a simple set of tests to check that the update hooks run with the parameters expected, have their STDOUT and STDERR redirected to the client side of the connection, and that their STDIN does not contain any data (as its actually /dev/null). Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>	18 years ago

13 Commits (eed1fcd76d8893ab687c700e1729faea025ba7a8)